I have understood that Trusted boot and Kernel Patch Protection (or PatchGuard) are ways that Windows uses to protect itself from rootkit infections. But I cannot find a comparison of these two protection methods. I'm not looking for a detailed technical comparison, but just for a simple conceptual comparison.
I assume that Kernel Patch Protection protects only the integrity of the kernel and system files, while Trusted boot does the same thing, but Trusted boot is also a part of Secure boot which protects also the bootloader (one level higher). Am I wrong? Are there other important differences? And does that mean that Trusted boot is actually a replacement for Kernel Path Protection or just a different name for it?
Another point I am not sure about is that Kernel Patch Protection is available only on 64 bit Windows systems, but what is with Secure/Trusted boot? Is it available also on 32 bit Windows systems?